Administer Oath of Office for Russell Warren, to renew his term on the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Minutes:

Approve minutes of the Regular Meeting held August 8, 2011.

TABLED ITEMS:

Case No. 2011-03:

Request of Renew Contracting LLC, agent for Roland Sommerville, 5496 Lansbury Lane, for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 1160.05 of the Planning and Zoning Code. The applicant requests a 16'8" rear yard variance to allow the erection of a 12' x 12' deck.

Case No. 2011-04:

Request of Angela Williamson, 1175 Richmond Road for a variance from Chapter 1323.03 of the Planning and Zoning Code to allow a driveway extension up to the property line, not leaving the minimum 18" distance from the property line, which is required. A survey would also be required by the applicant to prove the minimum 18" is being established.

Request of Renew Contracting LLC, agent for Roland Sommerville, 5496 Lansbury Lane, for a variance from the provisions of Chapter 1160.05 of the Planning and Zoning Code. The applicant requests a 16'8" rear yard variance to allow the erection of a 12' x 12' deck.

Case No. 2011-04:

Request of Angela Williamson, 1175 Richmond Road for a variance from Chapter 1323.03 of the Planning and Zoning Code to allow a driveway extension up to the property line, not leaving the minimum 18" distance from the property line, which is required. A survey would also be required by the applicant to prove the minimum 18" is being established.

Case No. 2011-05:

Request of Eli Mahler, Architect for Amy Joy Donuts, located at 5211 Mayfield Road, for a variance from Chapter 1168.03 (a)(5) of the Planning and Zoning Code for use of a drive-through window which is prohibited for food establishments. This request would allow Amy Joy Donuts to use the existing drive-through window that the former D O Summers utilized.

Administer Oath of Office to David Bader, to renew his term of office as member of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Case No. 2011-02:

Request of Joshua Wyatt, of 1254 Blanchester Road for a variance from Chapter 1160.04 (a) (2) A & B of the Planning and Zoning Code to permit parking and/or storing of a commercial vehicle outside at any time in plain view.

June 13, 2011: Board of Zoning AppealsMINUTES:

The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Lyndhurst met in Regular Session on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Lyndhurst Municipal Center, 5301 Mayfield Road.

It was moved by Mr. Bader, seconded by Mr. Koss that the reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held April 11, 2011, copies of which were mailed to all members, be dispensed with and said minutes stand approved as circulated.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

At this time, the Oath of Office was administered to Mr. David Bader, by Mr. Paul Murphy, to renew his term on the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Case No. 2011-02

Request of Joshua Wyatt of 1254 Blanchester Road for a variance from Chapter 1160.04 (a)(2) A & B of the Planning and Zoning Code to permit parking and/or storing of a commercial vehicle outside at any time in plain view.

Grounds for appeal and Chapter 1160.04 (a)(2) A & B were read by Mr. Bader.

Letters of invitation were mailed to all pertinent property owners, a copy of which is made part of the permanent file.

A letter was submitted by the applicant, Joshua Wyatt, which was circulated to many of the neighbors who signed the letter stating they had no objection to the granting of the variance. A copy of these signatures is made part of the permanent file.

Mr. Mandato stated that three (3) letters were received, one stating no objection to the granting of the variance, and two stating objections to the variance. These letters are also part of the permanent file.

In answer to Mr. Warren's question asking when the ordinance was originally passed, Mr. Bader stated it was passed on June 7, 1999.

The following witnesses signed the register and were sworn in by Mr. Murphy:

Mr. Simon Johnson, attorney for Mr. Joshua Wyatt, testified that the appellant, if not granted a variance will suffer unnecessary hardship because Mr. Wyatt would have to drive to Chardon to get his work truck then drive to the first appointment of the day, which would take close to two hours. He further testified that the uniqueness of the situation is that there are only a few contractors in the area, such as Mr. Wyatt. He then testified that allowing the commercial vehicle at Mr. Wyatt's residence would not alter the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. He then testified that the hardship is not created by the applicant, but the ordinance. Mr. Johnson testified that by the signatures submitted, there is an overwhelming amount of support to allow Mr. Wyatt to keep his commercial vehicle at his home. He also testified that this commercial vehicle is clean, well maintained, and parked at the rear of the driveway, close to the house. He then testified that another alternative would be to request a size variance for the existing garage, making it larger to park the commercial vehicle inside. He also testified that the Wyatt's only have one vehicle, which Mrs. Wyatt drives; another vehicle would have to be purchased for Mr. Wyatt to drive to and from his work vehicle.

Mr. Wyatt, appellant, 1254 Blanchester Road, testified that he purchased the foreclosed home on Blanchester in December of 2007, and has since made many improvements, both interior and exterior. He further testified that the commercial vehicle is a closed box truck, is kept neat and clean, and is backed into the driveway. He then testified that this commercial vehicle is his main form of transportation.

Mr. Bob Wintersteller, 1250 Blanchester Road, testified that Mr. Wyatt is wonderful neighbor, and he would like to keep a person such as Mr. Wyatt in the neighborhood. He also testified that there are many commercial vehicles in the area, and questioned why this particular one is targeted. He testified that the vehicle in question is well maintained, and that he does not have any objections to the requested variance.

Mrs. Adele Barry, 1251 Blanchester Road, testified that Mr. Wyatt is a nice family man who is trying to make a living and the granting of the variance would not affect her in any way, so therefore, has no objection to the requested variance.

Mr. E Dale Inkley, 5126 East Farnhurst Road, testified that he is not visually affected by the commercial vehicle; however the laws and ordinances of the City should be followed. He also testified that the ordinance was passed somewhat recently, 1999, so it is not an antiquated law. He testified that although he commends Mr. Wyatt's efforts to improve his house, he feels there is another alternative to the parking of the commercial vehicle in a residential neighborhood; a large garage can be rented.

In answer to Mr. Inkley's question, Mr. Wyatt testified he does not have the truck's dimensions, however he knows it's too tall to fit into a standard garage; it is approximately nine (9) to nine and a half (9 ½) feet tall. He testified that the overall length of the vehicle is approximately fifteen (15) feet.

Mr. Inkley testified that he agrees that it would be a waste of time and energy to drive to Chardon every day, and would again suggest that a large garage be rented at the cost of the company. He then asked Mr. Wyatt if he is an independent contractor.

Mr. Wyatt testified that his father owns the company, and he is not an independent contractor.

Mr. Inkley testified that it is not the City's burden to support the owners of commercial vehicles, and that the law should be followed. He then testified that most working people have to drive to and from work every day.

Mr. Wyatt testified that the company he works for offers emergency service; having the truck located in Chardon would add to the response time, especially if the job site were to be in Lyndhurst or further west.

Mrs. Adele Barry, 1251 Blanchester, testified that she sees the truck daily from her house, and it doesn't change her lifestyle one bit. She testified that she feels Mr. Wyatt is a good, hardworking American, and should be granted this request.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question, Mr. Wyatt testified that the vehicle in question is a Chevrolet 4500 and probably a one ton truck.

Mr. Koss stated he doesn't feel there is a hardship, because employees of utility companies and other private companies have to drive to a different location to get their vehicles, whether it's an emergency or not. He further stated that residential driveways don't have the reinforcement to uphold the weight of a one ton truck, and in time, the driveway will crack.

In answer to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Mandato stated that the Building Department is not in favor of the variance being granted.

Mr. Warren referenced the grounds for appeal, which states in 2c: "The special condition does not result from my actions. Instead, it results from the existence of the ordinance and the location of Wyatt Works' business office." He stated that it is in fact a result from the appellant's action. He further stated what makes a neighborhood desirable is the appearance of that neighborhood, and the laws and ordinances which dictate that residential appearance. He then stated he feels there is no sufficient evidence in which to grant the requested variance.

F I N D I N G S

The Board finds that:

No special conditions exist peculiar to the land or building in question.

Most people have travel time to work.

The vehicle in question is too large.

A petition in favor of the granting of the requested variance was signed by numerous people in the immediate area.

Few people were against the granting of the requested variance.

Other options exist, such as parking the commercial vehicle in a rented garage, closer to home.

The ordinance was passed in 1999, nine years prior to Mr. Wyatt purchasing his home.

It was moved by Mr. Koss, seconded by Ms. Colich that recommendation be made to Council to confirm the decision of the Board in Case No. 2011-2, to deny requested variance based on the above findings.

Roll Call:

Yeas: Colich, Bader, Koss, WarrenNays: None.

Motion carried.

It was moved by Mr. Koss, seconded by Mr. Warren that the meeting be adjourned.

Request of Greg Rochester of 4880 Countryside Road for a variance from the provisions of Section 1160.04 (a) 6 (A) of the Planning and Zoning Code. The requested variance would allow Mr. Rochester to erect a 14' x 16' storage shed. A variance of 104 square feet over the allowed maximum 120 square feet is requested.

April 11, 2011: Board of Zoning AppealsMINUTES:

The Board of Zoning Appeals met in Regular Session on Monday, April 11, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the Lyndhurst Municipal Center, 5301 Mayfield Road.

It was moved by Mr. Novak, seconded by Ms. Colich, that the reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held July 12, 2010, copies of which were sent to all members, be dispensed with and said minutes stand approved as circulated.

The question was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Motion carried.

It was moved by Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Koss to elect the following slate of officers for the year, 2011:

Request of Greg Rochester of 4880 Countryside Road for a variance from the provisions of Section 1160.04 (a) 6 (A) of the Planning and Zoning Code. The requested variance would allow Mr. Rochester to erect a 14' x 16' storage shed. A variance of 104 square feet over the allowed maximum 120 square feet is requested.

It was noted that there is more than forty (40) feet between the house and rear property line, therefore the appellant is allowed a one hundred twenty (120) square foot shed.

Mr. Greg Rochester, appellant, 4880 Countryside Road, testified that he is requesting this proposed shed to replace a smaller shed 16' wide by 12' feet, which was in disrepair due to the amount of standing water in his rear yard. He further testified that the height of the previous shed and the proposed shed is eleven (11) feet, and it is his intent to place the proposed shed at the same location as the previous shed.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question, Mr. Rochester testified that he believes the proposed shed will be at least three (3) feet from the rear property line. He further testified that the proposed plans distributed to the Board Members are smaller than what is requested, but will have a porch on the shed as shown.

Mr. Mandato stated that photos of the previous shed, and standing water were submitted by the applicant, however the printer in the Building Department was out of service. He further stated that the overhang shown is not counted as part of the square footage of the shed; overhangs are permitted by code.

In answer to Mr. Koss's question regarding the water problem in the rear yard, Mr. Rochester testified that he plans on digging a footer thirty-six (36) inches deep for a monolithic concrete slab, which will hold up to all the water.

In answer to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Rochester testified that the original shed was larger than what is allowed by code.

In answer to Ms. Colich's question, Mr. Rochester testified that he needs the extra square footage in the tool shed because he has a small two (2) car garage, and has a lot of tools, children's toys, sporting equipment, extra slate shingles and yard equipment. He further testified that the baggage assembly on the lawnmower that he currently owns had to be removed to fit through the door of the previous tool shed. He also testified that he would like to put in a drawbridge door to the proposed shed. He then testified that the materials to be used on the proposed shed will match the existing house; the same siding and detail.

In answer to Mr. Warren's question, Mr. Rochester testified that he parks only one car in the garage, the other vehicle, a large SUV won't fit due to its height.

Mr. Charles E. Hochstetler, 4855 Middledale Road, testified that the letter of invitation was addressed to 4855 Clubside, when in fact, he lives at 4855 Middledale Road. He testified that he is directly behind the Rochester property, and has no objections to the variance being granted. He asked if he could plant shrubbery to screen the structure; he further asked if the non-conforming tool shed would detract from his property value, since he is selling the house.

In answer to Mr. Bader's question regarding moving the location of the proposed shed forward to provide adequate screening, Mr. Rochester testified that he would move the location of the proposed shed if so directed, however, there is so much standing water in the rear yard, that no vegetation would survive; he has tried planting shrubs in that area before with no success. He further testified that he has placed French drains in the rear yard, which helps the drainage, but doesn't completely alleviate the problem.

F I N D I N G S

The Board finds that:

The property in question and the abutting rear yard neighbor have deep lots.

The existing two (2) car garage was built smaller than the two (2) car garages newly built.

The appellant testified that the materials used to build proposed shed will match the existing house; siding and details and color.

Special conditions are not the result of previous actions of the applicant.

The granting of the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood.

There were no objections from abutting property owners; in fact the neighbor most affected was present and stated the same.

It was moved by Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Novak that recommendation be made to Council to confirm the decision of the Board to grant requested variance based on the above findings and following conditions:

That the materials to be used are in keeping with the same architectural features and colors of the existing house on the property.

The variance granted is for the square footage only, there is no request for a height variance.

Roll Call:

Yeas: Bader, Koss, Colich, Novak, Warren.Nays: None

Motion carried.

It was moved by Mr. Koss, seconded by Mr. Bader that the meeting be adjourned.